Research & teaching job markets: an important difference?

I've written a number of times on how there are multiple academic job-markets, not just one. As a quick rough first pass, there is a research job-market and a teaching job-market--and hiring committees in each market look for different things. A few of my experiences have led me to believe that there may be another important difference--one that may be of great interest to grad students and job-marketeers: potential differences in being able to 'work your way' into a TT job. Allow me to explain.

Although I could be wrong, my sense is that if one does not get a research job relatively quickly (i.e. either right out of grad school or after a postdoc), one's chances of getting a TT job are likely go downhill quickly and stay that way (unless your publishing record is so undeniably good that hiring committees take notice). Why do I say this? I have to confess that my sense here is based mostly on anecdotes. But here are the anecdotes. I know of a few cases where someone was out on the market a while, published up a storm (in top-ranked journals), and then finally got a TT job at a research school. But I don't know many of these cases. I know far more cases of research-minded people--people who have also published up a storm in top 10 and top 5 journals--who still don't have a job or get many interviews. These anecdotes seem to me to fit well with Helen's work indicating it is next to impossible to "publish one's way up the hierarchy" into research jobs, as well as with what I have heard about the importance of trajectory. Basically, my sense is that if you don't get a research job relatively quickly, people on the hiring end of things at R1 schools may be likely to pass you over in favor of people coming out of grad school who "people are talking about."

Why is this potentially important? It may be important because my sense is that the opposite may be true in the teaching market--that is, that it may be more possible to "work your way" into a TT teaching job than a research job. Time and again, I have met people who were on the market a long time but were ultimately able to get TT teaching jobs. For instance, when I was on the market, I had a fly-out at a school where one of the faculty told me he was on the market for 10 years before getting his TT job there. I know a few other TT faculty at teaching institutions who were on the market something like that long, and I was on the market for 7 years myself. Also, working at a teaching-focused institution, I've seen multiple cases of something else you probably don't see in the research market: people getting hired into TT jobs from long-term adjunct positions.

While I only have anecdotal evidence for these possible differences, there seems to me a plausible explanation for why they are likely to exist. As I mentioned in my Secrets of Search Committees series, hiring committees at teaching institutions are plausibly looking for people with abundant, broad teaching experience and a sustained record of teaching success and innovation. But now notice: these are all things candidates can plausibly gain more of by being on the market. To put it another way, while being on the market a while may be a disadvantage for those trying to publish their way into a research job, it may be an advantage for those trying to work their way into a teaching job.

But again, these are just my impressions. Are they right? Wrong? It might be good to hear from people who have been on both markets to see whether their experiences confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis. Are there people out there who were able to get a TT research job after a long time on the market? Is this, as I predict, far less common than people getting TT teaching jobs after being on the market a while? I'll be very curious to hear readers' experiences!

Comments

[Pendaran]

"But now notice: these are all things candidates can plausibly gain more of by being on the market. To put it another way, while being on the market a while may be a disadvantage for those trying to publish their way into a research job, it may be an advantage for those trying to work their way into a teaching job."

You don't need any job to publish. You can write as many papers as you want while working as a barista or living in your dad's basement. I'm convinced you could be at least moderately well-known in your field as a weekend writer/weekday barista (stripper?). Getting a research job isn't about publications, or at least that's just one small component, as we both know and the data shows; but that's not relevant. On the other hand, to get teaching experience, you need a teaching job, and these days those are hard to get. Now, I understand that in the US you can get adjunct teaching rather easily or so I'm told, but for the rest of the world that's not really an option. In the UK, there really aren't enough beginner teaching jobs, and they seem to involve questionable hiring practices. Regardless, even if adjunct teaching was available everywhere, it would still be easier to write. You don't even have to put your pants on to write philosophy! Arguably it's hard to get into top 5 journals, although probably it's mainly luck. I mean referees are all over the place from my experience.

[Recent grad]

I think it depends on if you mean R1 jobs or jobs in departments with a PhD program. There are lots of R1 jobs, and their identities might surprise you. Publishing one's way into them is not uncommon. But I think you're right about PhD program jobs.

[Marcus Arvan]

Recent grad: I’d be curious to hear from readers. I know some people with publishing records so good that I’m shocked they haven’t been able to get something—and the only way I can really make sense of it is in the terms I mention in the OP. Are there people who were on the market a long while but who were able to publish their way into R1 jobs? I’d love to hear from some of them...

[Recent grad]

One of your blog members did that very recently.

[Amanda]

The official "R1" ranking is not relevant to philosophy. For the purposes of our discipline, an R1 is a school with a 2-2 teaching load and tenure requirements based on research. And anyway, in general I think Marcus is correct. There are exceptions, and I know exceptions of people moving up after a long time at teaching schools, but these are rare. That said, I think the issues isn't what people think. Having an amazing publication record understood as lots of publications in very high-ranked journals will not get you a research job. Having a reputation as a key figure in your field will. Those who get research jobs generally have very strong publication records, but so do people without research jobs, what makes someone stand out is having a directed research project and being a name in your speciality.